When does the right to bear arms end?

[MistDaemon]

If you really think that the system works, you are wrong. I have a personal example in which the Sheriff in my County is basically a rogue entity. NO ONE oversees or controls them, not the DA, Not the Board of Supervisors, not the AG, no one. Yes, if they really cross the line someone will do something, but if they retaliate against you because you did not act like a proper peon when you had an appointment, but the person was out sick, so you asked if a supervisor could assist, but instead the department was closed. They falsely claimed that I was fired from a job, which I proved was false, but that did not make any difference. I filed a complaint, but they could not find anything wrong, but refused to explain the false statements from the department.

Yeah, if I had the money I could get justice, but without that nothing can or will be done.

When I said that perhaps the politicians wanted to disarm people in order to protect themselves, maybe that was giving too much credit to them, perhaps it is just because they are stupid and can't follow the Constitution. It is not paranoia, but just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't after you :-). Feel free to explain the reason. Law abiding firearms owners are not the problem, criminals are and disarming citizens just make it easier for criminals.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by MistDaemon

If you really think that the system works, you are wrong.

Just because one feels he has been wronged by his government doesn't mean that the system is broken. The very nature of politics means that not everyone can get his way. There are thousands of mutually exclusive political philosophies at work; they can't all be implemented, meaning that someone is going to get what he wants, and some are going to get shafted.

I do think that the system works. Yes, there are components that fail from time to time, mostly minor failures, but occasionally massive. Nobody could ever reasonably suggest that it's perfect, but the solution isn't abandoning it like a spoiled brat throwing a fit because he didn't get his way.

I have a personal example in which the Sheriff in my County is basically a rogue entity. NO ONE oversees or controls them, not the DA, Not the Board of Supervisors, not the AG, no one. Yes, if they really cross the line someone will do something, but if they retaliate against you because you did not act like a proper peon when you had an appointment, but the person was out sick, so you asked if a supervisor could assist, but instead the department was closed. They falsely claimed that I was fired from a job, which I proved was false, but that did not make any difference. I filed a complaint, but they could not find anything wrong, but refused to explain the false statements from the department.

Yeah, if I had the money I could get justice, but without that nothing can or will be done.

There are a number of organizations available to assist you in seeking justice from government infringement of your rights. Contact the ACLU, and/or civil rights attorneys. Contact investigative reporters from your local TV stations. Write to the local papers, and blogs, and forums. If he truly is guilty of some sort of corruption, it's very likely that you're not alone and that other victims will come out of the woodwork to join you in taking him down.

Innocent unless proven Guilty holds true for public officials too. If nobody is sufficiently impressed to take up your case, and you're not willing to bring it in front of a judge yourself, the default answer isn't "government official is corrupt" - it's "Innocent of the charges".

Can you really say that something is corrupt if you're unwilling to challenge it?

Now, the impediment to justice may be a bit too high. It's got to be high enough to prevent people from using the court system itself to harass people, but not so high that people can abuse others with impunity. That's something that your legislators can cure, or at least mitigate. You could appeal to your county executives, see if they could and/or would rein him in.

Let's see.. go to the people, go to the ballots, go to the courts, go to the legislature, go the the executives... I've addressed most of the various means at your disposal, now back to the topic at hand. Could your problem be resolved with a gun? With a bunch of guns? Thinking it through, if you had sufficient force to stop the claimed abuse without rendering yourself an enemy of the people, you would have had far more votes than you would have needed to resolve the problem without bloodshed.

When I said that perhaps the politicians wanted to disarm people in order to protect themselves, maybe that was giving too much credit to them, perhaps it is just because they are stupid and can't follow the Constitution. It is not paranoia, but just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't after you :-). Feel free to explain the reason.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance - Hanlon's Razor.

I think it's more likely that the anti-gunners are acting in good faith. We all want crime reduced, and they think that no guns means no gun crime. Which is true - it's hard to commit a gun crime when you don't have a gun. They just forget that it's easier to commit a knife crime, or baseball bat crime when the proposed victim can't be legally armed.

And it's true for a lot of people that everything they know about guns they learned from hollywood. I certainly wouldn't want to see a gun in the hand of someone who knew nothing but what he'd learned in the movies!

Law abiding firearms owners are not the problem, criminals are and disarming citizens just make it easier for criminals.

In general, I agree. Although the issue I'm pointing out - that some gun owners maintain a belief that they can use their guns to resolve governmental oppression - is technically legal, yet part of the problem at hand. This belief certainly doesn't paint gun owners as model citizens, but as nutjobs. Again, I certainly believe these people are acting in good faith, but that doesn't mean their actions are helpful.

[MistDaemon]

I tried to challenge it and the simple fact is that unless I had money, I could not get justice. The Sheriff can lie and retaliate and get away with it. And, yes, the Sheriff is corrupt and the system is broken. If it worked, then there would be a way to get things fixed without having political power or money. Many of the groups that you mention are not really interesting in small fish (me).

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by MistDaemon

I tried to challenge it and the simple fact is that unless I had money, I could not get justice. The Sheriff can lie and retaliate and get away with it. And, yes, the Sheriff is corrupt and the system is broken. If it worked, then there would be a way to get things fixed without having political power or money. Many of the groups that you mention are not really interesting in small fish (me).

You didn't answer my last question on this subject, the one relevant to this thread. Please explain to me how a solution involving the use of firearms offers any advantages over any of the myriad of approaches that do not involve firearms.



Assuming, for a moment, that the sheriff is actually corrupt and oppressing you. You say that the sheriff can retaliate against you. Do you honestly expect freedom to be free?

You say that you need money to seek justice - there are hundreds of thousands of freedom-loving individuals who fund battles against political tyranny. While freedom isn't free, you don't have to foot the bill alone. Furthermore, many civil rights attorneys operate on commission. When you win, the oppressor pays the cost of re-acquiring freedom.

Given all of this, would you compare and contrast your attitude toward liberty with that of Patrick Henry?

Originally Posted by Patrick Henry

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me liberty or give me death.

Have we forgotten that freedom isn't free? That there are huge costs involved in seeking, maintaining, and preserving our rights and freedoms? There are people fighting and dying around the world, trying to throw off the yoke of tyranny. What does it say of us when we are unwilling to even type out a letter in defense of our own liberty?

[neophyte]

rivalarrival: Sir, are you establishing your superior knowledge base?

you quote:

Please explain to me how a solution involving the use of firearms offers any advantages over any of the myriad of approaches that do not involve firearms.
1. Definition of MYRIAD. 1: ten thousand . 2: a great number

hmmm;

are you a lawyer

You say that you need money to seek justice - there are hundreds of thousands of freedom-loving individuals who fund battles against political tyranny. While freedom isn't free, you don't have to foot the bill alone. Furthermore, many civil rights attorneys operate on commission. When you win, the oppressor pays the cost of re-acquiring freedom.


hmmm; wonder what the context;

Originally Posted by Patrick Henry
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me liberty or give me death.

another hmmmm

you have already decided to give away any right/rights

Have we forgotten that freedom isn't free? That there are huge costs involved in seeking, maintaining, and preserving our rights and freedoms? There are people fighting and dying around the world, trying to throw off the yoke of tyranny. What does it say of us when we are unwilling to even type out a letter in defense of our own liberty?

1. Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal

2. Greek tyranny in the main grew out of the struggle of the popular classes against the aristocracy or against priest-kings where archaic traditions and mythology sanctioned

3. Freedom may refer to: Philosophy. Free will, the ability to make choices

it is easy to ''establish'' your considerable knowledge; as a basis for your thoughts; with proper dirrection to the uninformed

with the informed; hmmm
with the casually informed hmmm
with the less than casually informed hmmm


revisit! perhaps your own thought. Then read the history, grabbing a Paul Reviere, riding through the street

what does ride mean
what does street mean


I really don't have any intentions; with argument; nor knowledge based discussion.

this is just ''my point in ponder''

[MistDaemon]

The fact is that if things get really out of control and no longer doing the will of the people, then there is an option. Right now, people need to speak up and vote.

If you look at the LA Riots, where the police said to call when it was over, it is a clear sign that people need to be responsible for their own safety and when things get out of control, the people need to have a means of protecting themselves. If there is a major problem with the government, which I really hope never happens, the people need an option.

In response to other questions, while there are groups that help with things, often there has to be something in it for them. If they can't get good press, then they are not interested. Freedom isn't free? I am suppose to pay? What you don't get is that if I were to sue and win, there is no huge money damages, just a correction in doing what should have been done, so there is no money in it, which is why lawyers want to be paid up front.

[rivalarrival]

You have a rather... flowery... style of communicating. You seem to respond to specific words and phrases of little relevance one moment, then make sweeping, unsupported generalizations the next. I'm having a very difficult time following your comments, but I will try to respond.

Originally Posted by neophyte

rivalarrival: Sir, are you establishing your superior knowledge base?

No.

you quote:

1. Definition of MYRIAD. 1: ten thousand . 2: a great number

hmmm;

are you a lawyer

The exact number implied by "myriad" is irrelevant, as any positive number is is sufficient to demonstrate my point: guns don't solve American political problems. My choice in profession is equally irrelevant, but no, I am not a lawyer.

Would you care to address the request itself? Can you offer the explanation requested?

hmmm; wonder what the context;

Originally Posted by Patrick Henry
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me liberty or give me death.


another hmmmm

Patrick Henry was speaking to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775, asking those present to enter into what would become known as the Revolutionary War.

you have already decided to give away any right/rights

There is a word to describe the condition where nobody voluntarily gives up their rights: "Anarchy". Living in any society involves compromise. In our society, one of those compromises is that we don't shoot people when they don't do what we want them to do.

1. Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal

2. Greek tyranny in the main grew out of the struggle of the popular classes against the aristocracy or against priest-kings where archaic traditions and mythology sanctioned

3. Freedom may refer to: Philosophy. Free will, the ability to make choices

it is easy to ''establish'' your considerable knowledge; as a basis for your thoughts; with proper dirrection to the uninformed

with the informed; hmmm
with the casually informed hmmm
with the less than casually informed hmmm

You've focused on three specific words, without even beginning to address the point of that paragraph. You are looking at the trees through an electron microscpe; can you take a step back now and comment on the forest?

revisit! perhaps your own thought. Then read the history, grabbing a Paul Reviere, riding through the street

what does ride mean
what does street mean


I really don't have any intentions; with argument; nor knowledge based discussion.

this is just ''my point in ponder''

Noted. Cheers!

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by MistDaemon

The fact is that if things get really out of control and no longer doing the will of the people, then there is an option. Right now, people need to speak up and vote.

Again, if things get "really out of control and no longer doing the will of the people", the army you raise to change things will have sufficient political power to change things LONG before it has sufficient military power to make similar changes. Again, it is our voices that create change, not our guns.

If you look at the LA Riots, where the police said to call when it was over, it is a clear sign that people need to be responsible for their own safety and when things get out of control, the people need to have a means of protecting themselves. If there is a major problem with the government, which I really hope never happens, the people need an option.

I agree fully with the idea that primary responsibility for an individuals safety and security rests with that individual. If there is a major problem with our government, it is because the people have allowed it to happen by not exercising their will.

In response to other questions, while there are groups that help with things, often there has to be something in it for them. If they can't get good press, then they are not interested.

These groups won't participate in activities they consider frivolous.

Are you saying there is no good press to be had from your situation? No good press in bringing a "corrupt" public official to justice?

Freedom isn't free? I am suppose to pay?

How many American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and other Patriots have fought, killed, and died to ensure that the American people are free? One dishonors each and every one of them when he sees injustice and does nothing to combat it.

I am not saying this lightly: In exercising their Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, the Westboro Baptist Church - the most despicable specific people I can think of, the group that pickets the funerals of dead soldiers - is more honorable for exercising their rights than any individual who sees injustice and does absolutely nothing to combat it.

No, freedom isn't free. It's very expensive. Sometimes the cost is a letter to a newspaper; sometimes it's someone's life.

What you don't get is that if I were to sue and win, there is no huge money damages, just a correction in doing what should have been done, so there is no money in it, which is why lawyers want to be paid up front.

What have you done to bring public pressure against the corruption? Letter writing campaign to executives and legislators? Sheriff is usually an elected position - have you spoken to officials in the local political parties? Donated your effort to supporting an opposing candidate?

This is getting WAY off topic... Is there any way to use a gun to stop this corruption? If there is, please make it known, or concede the issue.

[neophyte]

rivalarrival: Sir, as you suggest; choosing specific words; without trying to degrade; or ??

Your thoughts; tearing apart; and not seeing how easily you miss the points

addressing:?

Originally Posted by rivalarrival
Have we forgotten that #3 freedom isn't free? That there are huge costs involved in seeking, maintaining, and preserving our rights and freedoms? There are people fighting and dying around the world, trying to throw off the #2 yoke of tyranny. What does it say of us when we are unwilling to even type out a letter in defense of our own #1 liberty?

1. Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal

2. Greek tyranny in the main grew out of the struggle of the popular classes against the aristocracy or against priest-kings where archaic traditions and mythology sanctioned

3. Freedom may refer to: Philosophy. Free will, the ability to make choices

without question; I did respond to the base of your ''thought'';

You seem to respond to specific words and phrases of little relevance one moment, then make sweeping, unsupported generalizations the next. I'm having a very difficult time following your comments, but I will try to respond.

quite a puzzle; unsupported generalization; #1 myriad of approaches
1. Definition of MYRIAD. 1: ten thousand . 2: a great number



your words; I added the definitions?

as I suggested early on; I published the Basis for the Constitution; Bill of Rights.

you chose a different argument; one without my support.

Your sweeping word/phrase's are supported by what? {you have an opinion}

by and large; I haven't issue with learning discussion. without insecurity, without ''me is smarter than'' you; or my idea is the only relevance

without question; my desire to learn is paramount to my understanding

you nor I wrote the Constitution, I choose to allow it the face value; that it presents.

I do no choose; that you; or any other to #4 scrutinize; with ''this is the way it is today''

I easily destroyed your posting with facts. with #4 ''history words'';
( easily; other words were/are fair game} { I don't waste others time; with playing games; my reasoning for not completely butchering your thought.}

opening my own eyes to simple thoughts; in a most basic way? Now? having a good fun learning moment? doubtfully

It was written for us then; with a growing ''baby'' country in mind. They didn't have anything else to base the ''thought''

[rivalarrival]

I was trained as a linguist. You are using complex vocabulary. You are addressing complex, abstract topics. But, you are using simplistic grammar structures. These are traits common to non-native speakers of any language. Is English your native language?

I'm not trying to degrade you. I'm not trying to insult you. I think there is a language-barrier between us. I think this language-barrier is causing misunderstandings.

I will try to write more clearly. If you write your responses in both English and your native language, I think we will be able to communicate better.

Originally Posted by neophyte

rivalarrival: Sir, as you suggest; choosing specific words; without trying to degrade; or ??

Your thoughts; tearing apart; and not seeing how easily you miss the points

addressing:?

Originally Posted by rivalarrival
Have we forgotten that #3 freedom isn't free? That there are huge costs involved in seeking, maintaining, and preserving our rights and freedoms? There are people fighting and dying around the world, trying to throw off the #2 yoke of tyranny. What does it say of us when we are unwilling to even type out a letter in defense of our own #1 liberty?

1. Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal

2. Greek tyranny in the main grew out of the struggle of the popular classes against the aristocracy or against priest-kings where archaic traditions and mythology sanctioned

3. Freedom may refer to: Philosophy. Free will, the ability to make choices

without question; I did respond to the base of your ''thought'';

The base of my thought was not tyranny, freedom, or liberty. The base of my thought was the differences between two people. One person fights and dies to obtain his freedom and liberty. Another person refuses to do anything to keep his freedom and liberty. You did not address the differences in these two people. You did not address my thought.

as I suggested early on; I published the Basis for the Constitution; Bill of Rights.

you chose a different argument; one without my support.

Your sweeping word/phrase's are supported by what? {you have an opinion}

My words are supported by the Constitution. The constitution begins:

We the People of the United States,

It does not say "The King of the United States"
It does not say "The Emporor of the United States"
Power in the United States comes from the people. The people are the government. The government is the people.

My words are supported by Abraham Lincoln:

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom?and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

All people are create equal. The government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. How can the government-people be greater than other people?

Let's go back to the constitution:

Originally Posted by Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have power...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Congress has the authority to suppress insurrection. If a group of people try to use guns to change the law, Congress has the power to stop them.

Originally Posted by Constitution, Article III, Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States...

The judicial branch decides if laws have been broken.
The judicial branch decides if the other branches are obeying the law.
The judicial branch is the means the founders gave us to challenge corruption.

My words are supported by thought-experiment.

Originally Posted by rivalarrival

Imagine trying to change the government by force. How much military force would you need? How many people would you need in your army?

How many people would you need to vote for a change?

Your army would need to be bigger. You would be able to win an election before you had enough people to fight.

by and large; I haven't issue with learning discussion. without insecurity, without ''me is smarter than'' you; or my idea is the only relevance

without question; my desire to learn is paramount to my understanding

you nor I wrote the Constitution, I choose to allow it the face value; that it presents.

I do no choose; that you; or any other to #4 scrutinize; with ''this is the way it is today''

I easily destroyed your posting with facts. with #4 ''history words'';
( easily; other words were/are fair game} { I don't waste others time; with playing games; my reasoning for not completely butchering your thought.}

opening my own eyes to simple thoughts; in a most basic way? Now? having a good fun learning moment? doubtfully

It was written for us then; with a growing ''baby'' country in mind. They didn't have anything else to base the ''thought''

In this last section: I'm not sure what you were trying to say.